This is only a preview of the August 1997 issue of Silicon Chip. You can view 34 of the 96 pages in the full issue, including the advertisments. For full access, purchase the issue for $10.00 or subscribe for access to the latest issues. Articles in this series:
Articles in this series:
Items relevant to "A 500 Watt Audio Power Amplifier Module":
Items relevant to "Build A TENS Unit For Pain Relief":
Items relevant to "PC Card For Stepper Motor Control":
Articles in this series:
|
Publisher & Editor-in-Chief
Leo Simpson, B.Bus., FAICD
Editor
Greg Swain, B.Sc.(Hons.)
Technical Staff
John Clarke, B.E.(Elec.)
Robert Flynn
Rick Walters
Reader Services
Ann Jenkinson
Advertising Manager
Brendon Sheridan
Phone (03) 9720 9198
Mobile 0416 009 217
Regular Contributors
Brendan Akhurst
Garry Cratt, VK2YBX
Julian Edgar, Dip.T.(Sec.), B.Ed
John Hill
Mike Sheriff, B.Sc, VK2YFK
Ross Tester
Philip Watson, MIREE, VK2ZPW
Bob Young
SILICON CHIP is published 12 times
a year by Silicon Chip Publications
Pty Ltd. A.C.N. 003 205 490. All
material copyright ©. No part of
this publication may be reproduced
without the written consent of the
publisher.
Printing: Macquarie Print, Dubbo,
NSW.
Distribution: Network Distribution
Company.
Subscription rates: $54 per year
in Australia. For overseas rates, see
the subscription page in this issue.
Editorial & advertising offices:
Unit 34, 1-3 Jubilee Avenue, Warrie
wood, NSW 2102. Postal address:
PO Box 139, Collaroy Beach, NSW
2097. Phone (02) 9979 5644. Fax
(02) 9979 6503.
ISSN 1030-2662
PUBLISHER'S LETTER
Australia can make those
greenhouse reductions
Hands up all those people who have not been
impressed by Prime Minister John Howard’s
attempt to get different targets for Australia’s
greenhouse emissions. Mr Howard maintains
that Australia should be a special case, essentially because of our mining and metal refining
industries. This didn’t cut much ice with most
other countries because they all reckon that
Australia is part of the same planet – an argument that’s difficult to disagree with.
In fact, Australia does not have an unusually
energy-intensive economy in comparison with other OECD countries. We might
be mining-intensive but we are not exactly overloaded with heavy industry. The
OECD as a whole has reduced energy use per unit of economic output by more
than 20% over the last 20 years while Australia has improved by only about 5%.
By not agreeing to a 15% reduction in greenhouse emissions (below 1992 levels)
by the year 2010, we are ensuring that there will be little or no change to our
wasteful ways. It would be better to aim for the target, even if we failed trying.
In fact, our government is taking a completely wrong approach. Rather than
thinking in terms of reductions in greenhouse emissions and how much it might
cost, the correct approach is to see how much money might be saved. Just recently,
a Sydney fast food chain has shown it can reduce its energy bill by 22%, while
making a 33% return on the investment in energy efficiency. That is a very good
return on investment in anybody’s language.
Other fast food chains are following suit and taking measures to reduce the
cost of lighting, air conditioning and cooking. This is all pretty easy stuff which
leads to the question: why weren’t they making these savings years ago? The
same questions should be asked of virtually every company and public body in
Australia. At present, the answers are pathetic.
In truth, Australian companies and public organisations are poor performers
by comparison with the world’s best, not only in terms of energy efficiency but
in terms of return on sales, return on investment, return on equity and virtually
any other measure you might care to think of.
Consider how good greenhouse reductions (read energy savings) can be from
a typical company point of view. They make an investment which is subject to
the normal depreciation allowances (ie, they get tax deductions) and then any
savings they make are straight profit. Many companies then go on to claim the
good publicity by claiming that they are “environmentally green and clean” and
all that rot. But the real reason to make the investment is to make (or save) money.
They don’t have to “care” about the environment at all.
Let’s face it, a reduction of say 20% over a period of 12 years is only 1.5% per
annum which is pretty tiny really. Many companies could make the 20% reduction
in just one year. Can’t we as a country manage the target? Australia is supposed
to be the “clever country”, isn’t it?
Leo Simpson
WARNING!
SILICON CHIP magazine regularly describes projects which employ a mains power supply or produce high voltage. All such projects should
be considered dangerous or even lethal if not used safely. Readers are warned that high voltage wiring should be carried out according to the
instructions in the articles. When working on these projects use extreme care to ensure that you do not accidentally come into contact with
mains AC voltages or high voltage DC. If you are not confident about working with projects employing mains voltages or other high voltages,
you are advised not to attempt work on them. Silicon Chip Publications Pty Ltd disclaims any liability for damages should anyone be killed
or injured while working on a project or circuit described in any issue of SILICON CHIP magazine. Devices or circuits described in SILICON
CHIP may be covered by patents. SILICON CHIP disclaims any liability for the infringement of such patents by the manufacturing or selling of
any such equipment. SILICON CHIP also disclaims any liability for projects which are used in such a way as to infringe relevant government
regulations and by-laws.
Advertisers are warned that they are responsible for the content of all advertisements and that they must conform to the Trade Practices Act
1974 or as subsequently amended and to any governmental regulations which are applicable.
2 Silicon Chip
|